Elected government officials only do three tasks--without these they have no purpose:
Robert Reich just posted a YouTube video giving several reasons why we need a Public Option. I heard several reasons why we need it:
I still do not see why the Public Option is necessary. If I want to keep my existing coverage, why do I care about the Public Option? Who cares what the pharmaceutical and insurance companies are for or against? Not having this program will not add to our national debt, but who knows for sure if it will not add to it?
I'm more interested with the idea of competing against existing insurance companies. Recently, Rep. Henry Waxman sent letters to the top 52 health insurance companies in the nation to inquire about their business practices. If we already have 52 huge insurance companies and hundreds of smaller ones, why is it so important to add another competitor to the health care arena? If the reason is that this will compete nationally, why don't we just change the insurance rules to allow coverage across state lines?
The other day, my wife and I went to the Home Depot for some items around the house. One item we needed was a nut for a bolt for our daughter's scooter. It was easy enough to find in the store and it only cost six cents.
We proceeded to a cashier to purchase all of our items and I handed the lady the nut. She asked, "What size is this?" and my wife politely answered, "It is a quarter-inch nut." Our jaws dropped when the polite cashier responded with "Is that one slash three or one slash four?"
Former Senator George Nethercutt wrote a wonderful article on the Politico website. Some points that I really agree with are:
While I agree that all our elected officials (both in the majority and minority) should stop whining about citizens protesting, I found a larger group of whiners...the people who respond to any argument by name-calling. Here is a very small sample of quotes from bomb-throwers that don't try to win the argument with logic.
I get very frustrated with people like these who really divert attention away from the real debates. If these people want to push their ideas, they should find a new way to communicate.
With several reports stating that members of Congress haven't read legislation on which they are voting (or here, here and here), does anyone know who is writing the legislation?
Even though abortion nor privacy are ever mentioned in the Constitution, why do some people so liberally view the Constitution that they can see:
But at the same time, strictly view the Constitution's second amendment and believe:
If companies find out that it would be cheaper for them to pay the 8% penalty and drop coverage, the insurance companies would lose business. In turn, they would have to either raise rates for other people or layoff employees. Either outcome will start the cycle over and more people will be on the government plan. I would like to know what provisions are being made to ensure that insurance companies will remain a viable competitor to the government health plan. Are there any insurance companies too big to fail?
Several years ago, much of the news centered around affirmative action. Although I am generally against the concept of affirmative action, I admit that I don't know how long it will take to undo all the years of segregation.
It is very easy to point out inequality. You simply point it out. You take a definite example and say that inequality exists. One piece that always seemed to bother me was when someone would point out racism and mention that affirmative action was still needed...but the end point always kept moving. People would say that there are no black baseball players. Then no black pitchers. Then no black coaches. Then no black owners. Next it might be there is a discrepancy in left handed pitcher's ERA's who pitch on the third Tuesday in a month with a blue moon.
But how do you define equality and make laws and policies around it? I always wanted to ask people, "Under what measurable conditions would it take for you to agree that affirmative action is not needed anymore? "
I thought about that for quite a while, and I created my own list. My list is simple, looking at positive behaviors, and generally is about everyone having the same opportunities...but not necessarily the same outcome. Based on the Keep It Simple method, here is my list:
After compiling my list, fine-tuning it, and just thinking about what it means; I realized that this is how I define equality. This list isn't only about race--it could be used to define equality among between any two groups.
I know my list is very simple. My list probably doesn't represent everyone's opinion, but it is a start. I wish I would hear more opinions of the definition of equality!
Why does it seem that all federal politicians only had the career of a politician? They start their careers in local government, then state government, and ending in federal government.How many politicians comprehend all the rules they force on people; or even read the legislation? How many of them are business owners? How many of them have to purchase their own health insurance? How many of them send their children to public schools? How many of them are considered rich and vote for themselves to pay more taxes?
Does it seem that if a successful businessperson runs for a political seat, that everyone feels like that person is trying to buy the election? Why do people feel like the only good candidates are political lifers?
I wish all political leaders be required to work in their own district at least six months of each year. These leaders might spend more time at home running a small business, volunteering, or just getting to know their constituents better. The time spent working as a politician could then focus just on the important matters with more empathy for the people back home.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury... Attributed to Tytler.
Does anyone find it ironic that two news articles appeared on June 8th, 2009 that dealt with prisons, prison life, and judicial sentencing? This demonstrates a huge contrast between different country's sentencing styles and the expectations of prison life.
One was about the possibility of closing San Quentin, but the inmates (including murderers) don't want to leave as they want to maintain their lifestyle of the Shakespearean drama program, football, baseball, basketball, soccer and tennis teams, and the Prison University Project.
The second article was about North Korea sentencing two journalists to twelve years of hard labor for encroaching on North Korean soil for reporting on human trafficking by Kim Jong Il's regime.
Maybe these two articles illustrate some of the differences between rehabilitation and punishment/deterrence.
I can't believe many school districts are trying to do away with homework, grades, and deadlines. Some are even trying to remove any negative consequences for cheating. I believe there is a huge disconnect between some of these decision makers and the teachers that must implement these rules.
Can you imagine the life of the school administration...We just made it easier for students to erase those pesky zeros. We will be viewed better by the state and federal governments since we will have more passing $tudent$.
Can you imagine the life of a student...Freedom! No school work since it will not affect their grade. They can go out each night since they have nothing due the next day! They might even wonder why there is a controversy about the university president and plagiarism. I doubt they lose any sleep trying to complete all the assignments during the last two weeks of term.
Can you imagine the life of a parent...How can we justify that our sons and daughters must do their work outside of school if the school itself doesn't even consider it important?
Can you imagine the life of a teacher...How much extra work is needed to grade each assignment as it comes in? What was the grading scale for that assignment due two months ago? How should was describe their student's performance when calling parents for lack of homework? How should we identify students at risk of failing if there is no continuous way to determine the student's abilities? How are we to motivate our students to study and do their homework?
Can you image the life of a future employer...Why do we keep hiring people that do not know what a deadline is? Why do our employees expect to get paid for zero work? I wish we could import some immigrants who were taught a good work ethic.
Can you imagine how I think about this? Well, once there was this 'great' idea that walls separating classrooms was a bad idea and so this school built a high school without walls. There were no walls between algebra and chemistry. There were no walls between the class that took the English class that took the test yesterday and the one taking it today. This open classroom idea lasted a very short time before the classes were partitioned off. The idea of open classrooms was not a good idea. I don't see how removing homework, grades, deadlines, and discipline is a good idea either.
In general, the most a student will achieve is the least expected of them.
An AP article, 'New CEO: Gates Foundation learns from experiments' discusses how much influence a teacher makes to students. A little blurb:
Raikes said the district found that putting a great teacher in a low-income school helped students advance a grade and a half in one year. An ineffective teacher in a high-income school held student achievement back to about half a grade of progress in a year.
Now our society needs to have the school boards, superintendents, and principals recognize the importance of the teachers. This means the people on the top of our educational system need to give more resources to the teachers instead of adding more meaningless chores to the overworked teachers.
I really wish that all superintendents, principals, and political figures were required to teach at least one hour each day. Then maybe they would realize some of the tasks and limitations that teachers are forced to endure.
My wife is a teacher at an urban high school. Some of the policies in place are: With these MAJOR issues, it is the teacher's that are blamed. They are told they need better classroom management. They are told they need to be more positive. They are told to just say 'Yes' to whatever the student wants. They are told to influence the student's behavior since the administration will not use its backbone with a parent or student.
Maybe the school administration should fix the MAJOR issues before tweaking how the teacher teaches. How can we expect students to learn if we say it is OK to cheat, skip work class, no deadlines, etc.? What are we teaching our students? Do we only have expectations of teachers and no one else?
Schools should do what is best for the students...and that is not always saying 'Yes'
This really doesn't have anything to do with Sotomayor since I don't know how she will vote, but... Why does the Supreme Court members have to be an elite political party? It seems that you could throw any issue at the SCOTUS and predict 99% of the time how each judge will vote even before any arguments are heard. The way it is now, it just appears to be a smaller version of Congress and everything is political.
Shouldn't the judges hear the arguments and make their decisions on the arguments and the Constitution? Not whether they are personally for or against big government, taxes, guns, abortion, immigration, etc.
People become teachers because someone sparked an interest that grew into a flame that they want to share with others.
Once becoming a teacher they are ignored, treated with disrespect, and made into scapegoats from politicians, school administrators, parents and students--and the only spark left is of hope.
Literature Review: Research shows that close to thirty percent of new teachers leave teaching within three years and nearly fifty percent quit before five years; most shocking is that fifteen percent leave the profession in the first year (Ingersoll, 2002; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Linda Darling-Hammond (2003), citing a Texas study showing that teacher turnover costs the state around $329 million a year, reiterated, “early attrition bears enormous costs” (p. 8). source: Why New Teachers Come and Go-What We Can Do to Help Them Stay
The U.S. Constitution lists several rights that Americans have. These might include freedom of religion, speech, assembly, and privacy. Privacy is not directly mentioned, but it is generally interpreted that way from several of the items in the Bill of Rights. These written rights are defended by all Americans...
...until something happens and then some restrictions are added. You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded room. You really don't have the right of privacy if you are a celebrity. You can't own a firearm until you are an adult. Even the Constitution itself mentions libel and slander while also mentioning the freedom of speech and press. The end result is that we have some restrictions and responsibilities on each of our rights.
So I am wondering what are the rights, restrictions, and responsibilities of some of our 'rights' that are not specifically written into the Constitution. In particular, what are the boundaries to our 'right' to a quality education, our 'right' to quality health care, and our 'right' to an abortion?
The more I think about it, the root difference between conservatives and liberals is on how they view the U.S. Constitution.
Conservatives look closely at the founding father's reasoning for their inclusions and exclusions. Then they look at today's society and the original intent of the Constitution trumps today's desires.
Liberals, on the other hand, believe that the Constitution is alive and always changing. Since today's intent trumps the original intent, the liberal's view is that the Constitution is much more fluid and flexible.
While most Americans are reasonable and will agree that both components are important, the political extremist will only view whatever fits into their agenda.
Do you agree with this simplistic reasoning?
Update: This was just discussed on Glenn Beck about Cass Sustein's comments.
